On 5-aug-2005, at 15:55, Joe Abley wrote:
It is of course possible to construct networks through which TCP
behaves very poorly with anycasted services. This does not mean
that TCP is fundamentally incompatible with anycast.
It does mean that if people want to anycast services that run
On 8/5/05 8:12 PM, George William Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First, an electrical contractor backhoed a large fiber
link in downtown San Jose (address deleted due to security
concerns) this morning, causing moderate damage.
That's just plain silly. As if we (or even your imagined
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 17:45:13 -, Paul Vixie said:
disagreed. (because DNSSEC is coming.)
The operational question is, of course, whether we need to worry about
allocating
resources for deploying DNSSEC before or after IPv6. ;)
pgpbo8XS6qCho.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Andy Davidson wrote:
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
will the v6 access really be enough to require LB's? or are they there for
other reasons (global lb for content close to customers, regionalized
content) perhaps reasons which would matter 'less' in an initial v6
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Andy Davidson wrote:
Randy Bush wrote:
Until such devices support IPv6, to reiterate Steve's point, it's not an
option to consider approaching connectivity suppliers with IPv6 enquiries.
could you comment on christopher's observation that, given the likely
volume of
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sabri Berisha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
With the use of anycast DNS servers on the internet, TCP is no
longer an option for DNS.
Erm, bollocks.
Just because a few nameservers are anycasted doesn't mean that the
vast majority of
a good email over all explaining more parts of the pie :) sweet!
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Michael Loftis wrote:
--On August 5, 2005 11:13:13 AM +0200 Iljitsch van Beijnum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's a huge knock-on-effect on all manner of things that you might not
expect to need to think
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Daniel Golding wrote:
On 8/4/05 6:49 PM, Steve Feldman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I meant to ask this at a nanog or this IETF... why don't some of the
- There are (perceived to be) more important things to spend
our limited resources on.
Why should
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
This arguement we (mci/uunet) used/use as well: not enough demand to do
any v6, put at bottom of list... (until recently atleast it still flew as
an answer) How would you know if you had demand? how would you know if
people who had dualstack systems were trying to
without immediate needs and immediate testing/work I doubt vendors will
push in this new feature :( I may be cynical though...
s;immediate testing/work;increased sales;
i.e. how much will doing v6 add to the lb company's income?
randy
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Petri Helenius wrote:
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
This arguement we (mci/uunet) used/use as well: not enough demand to do
any v6, put at bottom of list... (until recently atleast it still flew as
an answer) How would you know if you had demand? how would you know if
--On August 6, 2005 6:56:27 PM + Christopher L. Morrow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a good email over all explaining more parts of the pie :) sweet!
Thanks... I try to add something to the threads when I weigh in...
..
ok, good... now in 5 years when there are 'many more' v6 users
On 6-aug-2005, at 23:58, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
how would you know if
people who had dualstack systems were trying to get and
failing?
Run statistics off some selected recursive resolvers? Filter out
spammers and other abuse first to make them more accurate.
Ok, perhaps off
Via the EFF website.
[snip]
Today the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a release announcing
its new rule expanding the reach of the Communications Assistance to Law
Enforcement Act (CALEA). The ruling is a reinterpretation of the scope of CALEA
and will force Internet
Actually the cable modems and Dsl modems usually have a 10.x address
they are used by the ISP's to access their internal firware. Also on
traces that I have done on both cable and dsl the first hop is
invariably a RFC1918 address.
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t,
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
It also hobbles technical innovation by forcing companies involved in
broadband to redesign their products to meet government requirements.
As opposed to hobbling innovation by meeting customer requirements?
who's paying the bill? and sorry to hear
i opine that some features are innovation and others not. i.e.,
x.25 support on modern kit seems a not innovative and a waste of
resources i would rather see applied elsewhere.
Probably a fairer characterization.
but every feature has its cost in complexity and resources to build
and
I realize that CALEA is primarily geared towards traditional
wiretapping (esp. pen register), but given the machinations
of other organaizations (which have also mobilzed law
enforcement) such as the MPAA and the RIAA, one might also
surmise that this also seems to be desired for not just VoIP
On 8/6/05, Tony Li [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i opine that some features are innovation and others not. i.e.,
x.25 support on modern kit seems a not innovative and a waste of
resources i would rather see applied elsewhere.
Who said the user end needs to support a tap being done? They
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 17:26:23 PDT, Tony Li said:
I'm sorry, but this is simply an unsupportable statement. What is
required of routers is that the provider be able to configure the device
to make copies of certain packets to a monitoring port. Assuming that
the monitoring port is duly
I'm sorry, but this is simply an unsupportable statement. What is
required of routers is that the provider be able to configure the device
to make copies of certain packets to a monitoring port. Assuming that
the monitoring port is duly managed, how does this qualify as insecure?
It
21 matches
Mail list logo
